Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 180 / Wednesday, September 17, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 55633 

1All comments received in response to the NPRM 

can be found on the Copyright Office’s Web site at 

http://copyright.gov/rulemaking/recordationpractices/docket2014-4/comments/. 2See Motion Picture Ass’n of Am., Inc., 

Comments Submitted in Response to U.S. Copyright 

Office’s July 16, 2014 Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (Aug. 15, 2014) (‘‘MPAA Comments’’); 

Barbara Jones-Binns, Comments Submitted in 

Response to U.S. Copyright Office’s July 16, 2014 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Aug. 15, 2014). 

3Author Services, Inc., Comments Submitted in 

Response to U.S. Copyright Office’s July 16, 2014 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Aug. 11, 2014). 

4Recording Industry Ass’n of Am., Inc., 

Comments Submitted in Response to U.S. Copyright 

Office’s July 16, 2014 Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (Aug. 15, 2014) (‘‘RIAA Comments’’). 

The Office received an additional comment 

regarding return receipts for electronic deposits 

submitted as part of registration, an issue that is 

outside the scope of this rulemaking. 

advocate, threaten, or use force or 

violence, or use any other illegal or 

unconstitutional means to engage in 

illegal, treasonous, or seditious 

activities. 

(D) The individual’s involvement in 

the activities was for an official purpose. 

Dated: September 11, 2014. 

Aaron Siegel, 

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison 

Officer, Department of Defense. 

[FR Doc. 2014–22034 Filed 9–16–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–P 

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

U.S. Copyright Office 

37 CFR Part 201 

[Docket No. 2014–04] 

Changes to Recordation Practices 

AGENCY: U.S. Copyright Office, Library 

of Congress. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Copyright Office is 

amending its regulations for the 

recordation of copyright transfers and 

other documents. The rule is intended 

to reduce the amount of time the Office 

requires to process certain types of 

documents submitted for recordation 

and help to alleviate remitter concerns 

regarding the receipt of documents for 

processing. To these ends, the revised 

regulations encourage remitters to 

include a cover sheet with the 

documents they submit for processing; 

allow remitters to submit long title lists 

in electronic format; and provide 

remitters with the option to request 

return receipts that acknowledge that 

the Office has received a submission. 

DATES: Effective October 17, 2014. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jacqueline C. Charlesworth, General 

Counsel and Associate Register of 

Copyrights, by email at jcharlesworth@

loc.gov or by telephone at 202–707– 

8350; or Sarang V. Damle, Special 

Advisor to the General Counsel, by 

email at sdam@loc.gov or by telephone 

at 202–707–8350. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

On July 16, 2014, the Copyright Office 

published a Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (‘‘NPRM’’) setting forth 

proposed regulatory amendments 

designed to speed processing of 

documents submitted for recordation 

under section 205 of title 17 of the 

United States Code. See 79 FR 41470. 

The NPRM encompassed three 

recommended changes to the Office’s 

recordation regulations. First, the NPRM 

proposed amending the regulations to 

reflect the fact that the Office has 

created a Recordation Document Cover 

Sheet (Form DCS) to assist with the 

processing of documents submitted for 

recordation under section 205. As the 

NPRM explained, remitters are not 

required to use Form DCS unless they 

are requesting a return receipt, but use 

of the form is encouraged to facilitate 

better recordkeeping and 

communication between the Office and 

remitters. Id. at 41471. Second, the 

NPRM proposed a rule to permit (but 

not require) the submission of electronic 

lists of titles of copyrighted works 

associated with remitted documents, 

where such lists include 100 or more 

titles. Id. at 41471–72. The NPRM noted 

that submission of lengthy title lists in 

electronic format would speed 

processing of documents by eliminating 

the need for manual transcription of 

titles into the Office’s Public Catalog. Id. 

at 41471. Third, the NPRM specified a 

procedure by which a remitter could 

receive a return receipt indicating that 

the Office had received a document 

submitted for recordation. Id. at 41472. 

Five comments were received in 

response to the NPRM.1 The Motion 

Picture Association of America, Inc. 

(‘‘MPAA’’) and Barbara Jones-Binns 

endorsed the proposed amendments in 

full, and had no further suggestions.2

Author Services, Inc., also supported 

the proposed rule, but stated it would be 

interested if, as a ‘‘next step,’’ the Office 

would ‘‘move towards being able to 

submit the titles of documents 

electronically for less than 100 titles.’’ 3

Finally, the Recording Industry 

Association of America, Inc. (‘‘RIAA’’) 

submitted comments that were largely 

supportive of the proposed rule, but 

contained three substantive concerns 

that are addressed in more detail 

below.4

II. Final Rule 

No commenter opposed the 

provisions of the proposed rule relating 

to Form DCS (section 201.4(b)) or the 

procedures for obtaining a return receipt 

(section 201.4(f)). Accordingly, those 

provisions of the proposed rule are 

adopted in the final rule without 

alteration. 

With respect to the proposed rule for 

submission of electronic title lists, 

commenters universally endorsed the 

basic approach of allowing remitters to 

file electronic lists of 100 or more titles, 

and expressed no concerns regarding 

the format or submission requirements 

for electronic title lists. For example, the 

RIAA ‘‘commend[ed] the Office for its 

proposal’’ and ‘‘agree[d] that [it] should 

relieve the Office of some of the burden 

of cataloging recordations of copyright 

documents involving large numbers of 

titles and expedite the processing of 

such documents.’’ RIAA Comments at 2. 

With respect to the suggestion of 

Author Services, Inc. that the Office 

consider allowing submission of 

electronic title lists containing fewer 

than 100 titles as a ‘‘next step,’’ at this 

time the Office finds that ‘‘electronic 

submission will prove more efficient 

only when indexing 100 or more titles,’’ 

79 FR at 41472. This view is based on 

the fact that, when a document pertains 

to 100 or fewer titles, the Office can 

create the basic record of the document 

and manually transcribe all of the titles 

in a single sitting, and make the record 

immediately available in the Public 

Catalog. As a result, while use of an 

electronic title list is expected to result 

in a much shorter turnaround time than 

manual processing of documents 

pertaining to 100 or more titles, the 

same cannot be said with respect to 

documents pertaining to fewer than 100 

titles. 

The RIAA offered three substantive 

comments on the proposed rule for 

submission of electronic title lists. First, 

it expressed concern with the rule’s 

specification that remitters would be 

legally responsible for errors in the 

electronic title lists. RIAA Comments at 

2–5. Second, it urged the Office to 

implement a process of quality control 

checks for electronic title lists. Id. at 2. 

Third, and finally, it suggested that the 

Office specify a mechanism for 

correction of errors in electronic title 

lists. Id. at 5. We address each comment 

in turn. 

1. Remitter Responsibility for 

Inaccuracies in Electronic Title Lists 

The RIAA disagreed with the 

proposed rule’s specification that 

remitters would bear the legal 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
55634 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 180 / Wednesday, September 17, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

5See Wachovia Bank NA v. Schmidt, 546 U.S. 

303, 315–16 (2006) (‘‘[U]nder the in pari materia 

canon of statutory construction, statutes addressing 

the same subject matter generally should be read ‘as 

if they were one law.’ ’’ (quoting Erlenbaugh v. 

United States, 409 U.S. 239, 243 (1972))). 

6H.R. Rep. No. 106–861, at 5–6 (2000); see Work 

Made for Hire and Copyright Corrections Act of 

2000, Public Law 106–379, 114 Stat. 144, 1445. 

Prior to this amendment, section 705(a) stated that 

the Register ‘‘shall . . . prepare indexes of all . . . 

records.’’ 17 U.S.C. 705(a) (1999). 

7The RIAA also relies on provisions of the 

Federal Rules of Evidence relating to the 

introduction of documentary evidence at trial. 

RIAA Comments at 3–5 (citing Fed. R. Evid. 

1001(d); 1002; 1003). While those provisions could 

be relevant in litigation involving a particular 

document, they do not govern the interpretation of 

the Copyright Act by the Copyright Office. See Fed. 

R. Evid. 101 (‘‘These rules apply to proceedings in 

United States courts.’’). 

consequences of any discrepancies 

between a paper document and the 

electronically formatted titles with 

respect to whether there is effective 

constructive notice or priority under 17 

U.S.C. 205. RIAA Comments at 2–5; see 

79 FR at 41473. Section 201.4(c)(4)(iii) 

of the proposed rule stated that the 

Office will rely on the electronic list of 

titles for purposes of indexing recorded 

documents in the Public Catalog and the 

remitter will bear the consequences of 

any inaccuracies in the electronic list in 

relation to the recorded document, 

including with respect to whether there 

is effective constructive notice or 

priority under 17 U.S.C. 205(c). For 

example, omission of a title from the 

electronic list such that the title is not 

properly indexed may affect the ability 

to claim that the public had constructive 

notice with respect to that title, even if 

the title appears in the paper document. 

If a title appears in the electronic list but 

is not included in the paper document 

that is actually recorded, the paper 

document will control (79 FR at 41473). 

As relevant here, section 205(c) of the 

Copyright Act provides that recordation 

of a document in the Copyright Office 

gives all persons constructive notice of 

the facts stated in the recorded 

document, but only if . . . the 

document, or material attached to it, 

specifically identifies the work to which 

it pertains so that, after the document is 

indexed by the Register of Copyrights, it 

would be revealed by a reasonable 

search under the title or registration 

number of the work . . . (17 U.S.C. 

205(c)). 

Section 205(d), in turn, states that, as 

between two conflicting transfers, the 

one executed first prevails if it is 

recorded, in the manner required to give 

constructive notice under subsection (c), 

within one month after its execution in 

the United States or within two months 

after its execution outside the United 

States, or at any time before recordation 

in such manner of the later transfer. 

Otherwise the later transfer prevails if 

recorded first in such manner, and if 

taken in good faith, for valuable 

consideration or on the basis of a 

binding promise to pay royalties, and 

without notice of the earlier transfer (17 

U.S.C. 205(d)). 

In its comments, the RIAA argues that 

the electronic title list rule should not 

suggest that a remitter’s failure to 

provide an accurate list might deprive 

the remitter of the legal benefits of 

recordation as provided under the 

statutory provisions. RIAA Comments at 

3. The RIAA reasons that, by making 

such a suggestion, the rule could 

‘‘punish rights holders who make 

innocent, inadvertent mistakes in 

preparing electronic lists in the 

specified format that are submitted for 

recordation by suggesting that the 

electronic lists may take precedence 

over the underlying original document 

that is submitted for recordation.’’ RIAA 

Comments at 2. The RIAA asserts that 

such a result would ‘‘deprive remitters 

of their right to constructive notice.’’ Id. 

Instead, in the RIAA’s view, a remitter 

should be entitled to the legal benefits 

of recordation—constructive notice and 

priority—even if the remitter provides 

the Office with an inaccurate electronic 

title list that causes the document to be 

indexed and cataloged incorrectly. The 

RIAA asserts that the contents of the 

recorded paper document must solely 

determine questions of constructive 

notice and priority under the Copyright 

Act. Id. at 3–5. According to the RIAA, 

any other result would ‘‘improperly 

subvert the plain language of the 

Copyright Act and the intent of 

Congress.’’ Id. at 2. 

As an initial matter, it should be 

noted that accepting the RIAA’s view 

would seriously undermine the central 

aim of the electronic title list rule. As 

the RIAA acknowledges, the rule is 

meant to ‘‘assist[] the Office in the 

efficient cataloging of the information 

contained in the lists.’’ RIAA Comments 

at 3. To effectively achieve that goal, the 

Office must be able to rely upon the 

electronic title lists for indexing 

purposes without having to individually 

review the titles in the electronic list 

against those in the paper document to 

identify and correct discrepancies. If, as 

the RIAA urges, constructive notice and 

priority as between conflicting transfers 

cannot be affected by inaccuracies in the 

electronic list that is intended to serve 

as the basis for the Public Catalog index, 

the rule will be in tension with the 

statutory design. In other words, for the 

rule to result in the efficient cataloging 

of documents submitted for recordation, 

the burden for creating accurate 

electronic title lists, and thus the legal 

consequences for failing to do so, must 

be on the remitter. 

As noted above, section 205(c) 

provides that constructive notice will 

attach ‘‘only if . . . the document, or 

material attached to it, specifically 

identifies the work to which it pertains 

so that, after the document is indexed 

by the Register of Copyrights, it would 

be revealed by a reasonable search 

under the title or registration number of 

the work.’’ 17 U.S.C. 205(c). This 

language indicates Congress’s intent 

that, before constructive notice can 

attach, the public should be able to find 

the document by title or registration 

number through a reasonable search of 

the Copyright Office’s records. For this 

reason we do not believe the RIAA’s 

approach to be aligned with the 

statutory goal. 

Moreover, the language in section 

205(c) referencing indexing by the 

Register of Copyrights must be 

interpreted in light of section 705(a), 

which provides that the Register ‘‘shall 

ensure that records of deposits, 

registrations, recordations, and other 

actions taken under this title are 

maintained, and that indexes of such 

records are prepared.’’ 17 U.S.C. 705(a) 

(emphasis added).5 She is also 

authorized to establish regulations 

consistent with the statute ‘‘for the 

administration of [her] functions and 

duties’’ under title 17. 17 U.S.C. 702. 

Thus, the Register may assign the task 

of indexing to another and issue 

implementing regulations; her duty is to 

ensure that indexes of records are 

prepared. Notably, section 705 was 

amended in 2000 specifically to 

empower the Register to delegate tasks 

related to record maintenance and 

indexing to others outside the Copyright 

Office.6 Especially in light of this 

amendment, allowing remitters to 

prepare electronic title lists that will 

serve as the basis for the recordation 

index is fully consistent with 

congressional intent.7

We appreciate the RIAA’s concern 

that remitters are perhaps bearing some 

additional responsibility and risk by 

choosing to submit electronic title lists. 

RIAA Comments at 5. We note that 

remitters can mitigate their risk by 

establishing appropriate internal 

procedures to review and confirm 

electronic lists before they are submitted 

to the Office. (Indeed, remitters should 

already be employing such measures for 

title lists that are submitted in paper 

form.) Still, the Office acknowledges 

that some remitters may not wish to take 

on the added burden of preparing a 

careful list in electronic form. In such a 

case, the remitter may continue to rely 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 180 / Wednesday, September 17, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 55635 

8The Office will reexamine the overall fees for 

recordation, including the impact, if any, of 

implementation of this rule, during its next fee 

study. See generally 79 FR 15910 (Mar. 24, 2014) 

(prior fee study). 

9 In a separate Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 

the Office proposes a fee of seven dollars for every 

title that is being corrected. 

on a wholly paper process and manual 

transcription by the Office. The Office 

continues to believe, however, that for 

many remitters, the benefits of faster 

processing times are likely to outweigh 

the concerns identified by the RIAA. 

Notwithstanding its disagreement 

with the RIAA’s basic position, the 

Office concurs with the RIAA’s views to 

the extent that the RIAA suggests that it 

is unnecessary for the rule itself 

specifically to note potential scenarios 

where discrepancies in the electronic 

list may give rise to concerns about 

notice or priority. Accordingly, the final 

rule omits the last two sentences of 

proposed § 201.4(c)(4)(iii), which 

referenced such scenarios, and revises 

the preceding sentence to be more 

general in approach. 

2. Quality Control Checks 

The RIAA also suggests that the Office 

‘‘implement a process of quality control 

checks, particularly during the first year 

or so after a final rule is promulgated, 

so that the Office can determine the 

extent of errors in the submissions of 

electronic lists.’’ RIAA Comments at 2. 

The RIAA notes that ‘‘[i]f the rate of 

such errors is not insignificant, the 

Office may need to consider modifying 

the rule in order to minimize such 

errors.’’ Id. 

The Office intends to ‘‘spot check’’ 

electronic title lists that are submitted, 

at least for some initial period of time 

after promulgation of the rule, and plans 

to communicate with remitters if 

inaccuracies are found. If the Office 

discovers an unacceptably high error 

rate in electronic title lists through these 

spot checks or otherwise, it will 

consider appropriate revisions to the 

rule. Notwithstanding such quality 

control checks, the Office reiterates that 

remitters bear full responsibility for 

ensuring the accuracy of the electronic 

title lists they submit. 

3. Correction of Errors 

The RIAA also urges the Office to 

‘‘provide for a mechanism or procedure 

by which a remitter can easily correct 

any errors to the electronic list that the 

remitter has supplied voluntarily.’’ 

RIAA Comments at 5. Specifically, the 

RIAA urges that ‘‘the remitter should be 

able to correct those errors in a simple, 

cost-free or low-cost manner,’’ and that 

‘‘there should be no time limitation 

during which a remitter can correct an 

error.’’ Id. 

In light of the potential consequences 

of errors, and to ensure the most 

accurate public record possible, the 

Office agrees with the RIAA that the 

rule should provide a mechanism for 

correcting errors in the online Public 

Catalog that stem from a remitter’s 

submission of an erroneous title list. 

The Office is therefore adding a 

provision to the rule to permit such 

corrections. This provision, to be 

codified at § 201.4(c)(4)(v), would apply 

after the document has already been 

processed and catalogued by the Office. 

Under the rule, if a remitter discovers an 

error in the cataloging of a recorded 

document that is a result of an 

inaccuracy in the earlier submitted 

electronic title list, the remitter may 

submit a corrected title list to the 

Copyright Office. 

To correct the Public Catalog, the 

original remitter of the recorded 

document must submit the full 

electronic list of titles, in the same 

format as prescribed for the originally 

submitted list, with each corrected row 

identified with color highlighting in the 

table. The table header should contain 

the phrase ‘‘CORRECTED TITLE LIST.’’ 

The table header, file name, and label 

on the storage medium should include 

the volume and document number of 

the recorded document to which the 

corrected list pertains so it can be easily 

matched to the proper record. A cover 

letter should also be included that 

clearly references the volume and 

document number of the recorded 

document, the name of the remitting 

party, the name of the first party listed 

in the paper document, and the first title 

listed in the paper document. Once 

received by the Office, staff will process 

the necessary corrections so they are 

reflected in the Office’s Public Catalog. 

In addition, a note will be placed in the 

record indicating that corrections were 

made to the catalog, and the date those 

corrections were made. 

This service will require the 

establishment of a separate fee.8 See 17 

U.S.C. 708(a) (authorizing the Register 

to ‘‘fix fees for other services . . . based 

on the cost of providing the service’’). 

But rather than delay the adoption of 

this final rule in its entirety to allow 

public comment on such a fee, the 

Office has decided to issue the rule now 

and delay imposition of the fee.9 Until 

the applicable fee is finalized through 

the separate rulemaking proceeding, the 

fee for submission of corrected title lists 

will be zero. 

4. Technical Changes 

Lastly, the final rule includes a few 

technical changes with respect to the 

processing of electronic title lists. The 

rule now specifies that the Office will 

add a note into the record indicating 

that it has used an electronic title list 

submitted by the remitter for purposes 

of indexing the document. In addition, 

the final rule includes two clarifications 

regarding the manner in which 

registration numbers are to be listed in 

electronic title lists. First, it specifies 

that when multiple registration numbers 

are associated with a title, the 

registration numbers should be 

separated by commas. Second, it 

requires the use of all capital letters for 

the alphabetic prefixes of registration 

numbers (e.g., ‘‘VAU’’ not ‘‘VAu’’). 

List of Subjects in 37 CFR Part 201 

Copyright. 

Final Regulations 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, the Copyright Office amends 

37 CFR part 201 as follows: 

PART 201—GENERAL PROVISIONS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 201 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 17 U.S.C. 702. 

■ 2. Amend § 201.4 by revising 

paragraph (b) and the paragraph (c) 

heading and by adding paragraphs (c)(4) 

and (f) to read as follows: 

§ 201.4 Recordation of transfers and 

certain other documents. 

* * * * * 

(b) Forms. Persons recording 

documents are encouraged, but not 

required, to complete and include a 

Recordation Document Cover Sheet 

(Form DCS), available on the Copyright 

Office Web site, with their submissions; 

provided, however, that if the remitter 

seeks a return receipt as provided in 

paragraph (f) of this section, then Form 

DCS is required. Form DCS may also be 

used to satisfy the sworn certification 

requirement of 17 U.S.C. 205(a), as 

provided in paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this 

section. If Form DCS is used, two copies 

of the completed form should 

accompany each document submitted 

for recordation, one of which will 

become part of the public record. 

(c) Document submission contents 

and process. * * * 

(4) Submission of electronic title lists. 

If a document submitted for recordation 

pertains to 100 or more titles of 

copyrighted works (including where the 

total number of titles across multiple 

title lists associated with the document 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
55636 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 180 / Wednesday, September 17, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

is 100 or more), in addition to 

identifying the titles in the paper 

submission, the remitting party may 

also submit an electronic list (or lists) 

setting forth each such title, as provided 

herein. The electronic list(s) shall not be 

considered a part of the recorded 

document and shall function only as a 

means to index titles and other 

information associated with the 

recorded document. When the Office 

uses an electronic title list submitted by 

a remitter for indexing purposes, it will 

make a note of this fact in the record. 

(i) Method of submitting electronic 

title lists. Absent a special arrangement 

with the Office, the electronic list must 

be included in the same package as the 

paper document to be recorded. The list 

must be prepared in a format consistent 

with the requirements in paragraph 

(c)(4)(ii) of this section, and stored on a 

compact disc, flash drive, or other 

digital storage medium approved by the 

Copyright Office that is clearly labeled 

with the following information: The 

name of the remitting party, the name of 

the first party listed in the paper 

document, the first title listed in the 

paper document, the number of titles 

included in the paper document, and 

the date the remitting party mailed or 

delivered the paper document. 

(ii) Format requirements for electronic 

title lists. Any electronic list of titles 

submitted pursuant to this paragraph 

(c)(4) shall conform to the requirements 

of this subparagraph. The electronic list 

of titles shall: 

(A) Consist of a table contained in an 

electronic file in Excel (.xls) format or 

an equivalent electronic format 

approved by the Office; 

(B) Include only letters, numbers, and 

printable characters that appear in the 

ASCII 128-character set; 

(C) Include four columns respectively 

entitled, from left to right, Article, Title, 

Authorship Information, and 

Registration Number(s); 

(D) List each title on a separate row 

of the electronic table, and include the 

following information for each title in 

the appropriate column, as applicable: 

(1) First column: Article. If the title of 

the work begins with one of the articles 

specified in the following list, the article 

should be separated from the title and 

placed in this column. If the title does 

not begin with one of the specified 

articles, the column must still be 

included, but this field should be left 

blank. The list of leading articles is as 

follows: 

(i) English: A, An, The 

(ii) Spanish: Un, Una, El, La, Lo, Las, 

Los 

(iii) French: L’, Le, La, Les, Un, Une 

(iv) German: Der, Die, Das, Einer, 

Eine, Ein; 

(2) Second column: Title. The title of 

the work, not including any leading 

article; 

(3) Third column: Authorship 

Information. The word ‘‘By’’ followed 

by the author or authors of the work. 

Where applicable, include designations 

such as ‘‘performer known as’’ or ‘‘also 

known as,’’ or the abbreviated form of 

such designations. Abbreviated 

designations must omit any punctuation 

between letters, for example ‘‘pka’’ (not 

‘‘p/k/a’’); and 

(4) Fourth column: Registration 

Number(s). The copyright registration 

number or numbers, separated by 

commas. This field is optional; if 

registration numbers are not being 

supplied for any title in the submission, 

this column should still be included, 

but left blank. Regardless of how they 

appear in the paper document, 

registration numbers included in the 

electronic list must be twelve characters 

long, must include a two- or three-letter 

prefix in all capital letters, and must not 

include spaces or hyphens. If a given 

registration number consists of fewer 

than twelve characters in the original, 

the remitting party should add leading 

zeroes to the numeric portion of the 

registration number before adding it to 

the list. For example, a published work 

with the registration number ‘‘SR–320– 

918’’ should be transcribed into the 

electronic list as ‘‘SR0000320918,’’ and 

an unpublished work with the 

registration number ‘‘VAu–598–764’’ 

should be transcribed into the electronic 

list as ‘‘VAU000598764.’’ 

(iii) Remitters to bear consequences of 

inaccurate electronic title lists. The 

Office will rely on the electronic list of 

titles for purposes of indexing recorded 

documents in the Public Catalog and the 

remitter will bear the consequences, if 

any, of any inaccuracies in the 

electronic list in relation to the recorded 

document, including with respect to the 

application of 17 U.S.C. 205(c) and 

205(d). 

(iv) Treatment of improperly prepared 

electronic title lists. The Office reserves 

the right to reject an electronic title list 

from any party that is shown to have 

submitted an improperly prepared file. 

(v) Correction of erroneous title lists. 

If a remitter of a recorded document 

finds that an error or omission in an 

electronic title list has led to the 

inaccurate indexing of the document in 

the Public Catalog, the remitter may 

request that the record be corrected by 

submitting a corrected version of the 

electronic title list. The remitter must 

submit the complete, corrected list of 

electronic titles in accordance with the 

method and format requirements set 

forth in paragraphs (c)(4)(i) and (ii) of 

this section, with each corrected row in 

the table identified by color 

highlighting. The table header should 

contain the phrase ‘‘CORRECTED TITLE 

LIST.’’ The volume and document 

number of the associated recorded 

document should also be included in 

the header, as well as in the title of the 

computer file containing the electronic 

title list. In submitting the list the 

remitter should include a cover letter 

that clearly references the volume and 

document number of the recorded 

document, the name of the remitting 

party, the name of the first party listed 

in the paper document, and the first title 

listed in the paper document. Upon 

receipt of a corrected electronic list in 

proper form, the Office will proceed to 

correct the data in the Public Catalog, 

and will make a note in the record 

indicating that the corrections were 

made and the date they were made. 

* * * * * 

(f) Return receipt. If, with a document 

submitted for recordation, a remitter 

includes two copies of a properly 

completed Recordation Document Cover 

Sheet (Form DCS) indicating that a 

return receipt is requested, as well as a 

self-addressed, postage-paid envelope, 

the remitter will receive a date-stamped 

return receipt acknowledging the 

Copyright Office’s receipt of the 

enclosed submission. The completed 

copies of Form DCS and the selfaddressed, postage-paid envelope must 

be included in the same package as the 

submitted document. A return receipt 

confirms the Office’s receipt of the 

submission as of the date indicated, but 

does not establish eligibility for, or the 

date of, recordation. 

Dated: September 2, 2014. 

Maria A. Pallante, 

Register of Copyrights. 

Approved by: 

James H. Billington, 

Librarian of Congress. 

[FR Doc. 2014–22233 Filed 9–16–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 1410–30–P 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES